Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
3D morphometric evaluation of the dental arches in children with cleft lip and palate submitted to different surgical techniques
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
3D morphometric evaluation of the dental arches in children with cleft lip and palate submitted to different surgical techniques
Do you wish to request the book?
3D morphometric evaluation of the dental arches in children with cleft lip and palate submitted to different surgical techniques
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
3D morphometric evaluation of the dental arches in children with cleft lip and palate submitted to different surgical techniques
2022
Overview
ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare dimensional alterations of dental arches in children with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate before and after different techniques of primary plastic surgeries.Materials and methodsThe sample was divided into two groups: group 1—cheiloplasty by Millard’s technique and one-stage palatoplasty by von Langenbeck’s technique; group 2—cheiloplasty by Millard’s technique and two-stage palatoplasty: anterior palatoplasty by Hans Pichler’s technique and posterior palatoplasty by Sommerlad’s technique. Dental arches were evaluated before (T1), after the first phase (T2), and 1 year after the second phase (T3) of primary surgeries. Linear measurements and palatal area were assessed. To analyze the method’s error, interclass correlation coefficient was applied. ANOVA (followed by Tukey test), dependent, and independent t-test were used (p < 0.05).ResultsAt T1, the intertuberosity distance was statistically greater in G2 (p = 0.004). At T2, the anterior length of the dental arch was statistically greater in G2 (p = 0.025), while the area of the smaller palatal segment (p = 0.001), cleft area (p = 0.014), and total area (p = 0.002) were statistically smaller in G2. At T3, the intertuberosity distance was statistically greater in G2 (p = 0.017).ConclusionThis study suggests that cheiloplasty and one-stage palatoplasty resulted in smaller growth of maxilla than cheiloplasty and two-stage palatoplasty in the linear measurements (T-T’ and I-CC’) and total area of the dental arches.Clinical relevance.Surgical protocols need to be evaluated to verify their effects aiming at improving the clinical practice of the interdisciplinary team, determining new parameters for the rehabilitation of individuals with cleft lip and palate.
